Marcas

"marcas somos todas" / "we're all marks"

we understand that marcos (ezln) stands as a mark that symbolizes itself- in it's most interesting way - as a body that signifies a multiplicity of other bodies... his shape, color or sex doesn't really matter. what matters is that through that mark/mask a collectivity of bodies is able to signify their impersonality, transitoriness, their transit.

there's a big man for each big happening, for each big movement. this repeats a series of clichés and some history's personification. what could be understood as a didactical tool for mentioning y pointing some moments and people (men) as a way to ease a set of ideas & events’ diffusion is also a tool that turns invisible. it erases &/or camouflage an identity shaped and shaping itself daily & collectively.

when we use the expression "colored people" are we trying to say that white people have no color? if we call black people (or indigenous people or brown people, or oriental people) "colored people" we are saying that white people are colourless. and if we pay a little attention we could see that this is not true. We are all colored people, nobody is colourless. so why is it that some of the colors are marked as colors? Why we attribute to some color a mark, and to another the neutrality [hum... neutralidade como marca, também? acho que cabe um adendo]? who decided that white is a neutral color? we could make a lot of questions like those ones, for example, who decided that generic-male (language) is neutral? who said that heterosexuality is normal or the pencil light-pink in my pencil box is the skin tone? Who decided that one color is skin tone and the others are different tone? who marked one color and not the other?

It reminds me of an expression that children often use in portuguese: “fulana está de marcação comigo” (could be roughly translated as: this person is marking me, but it means that someone is harassing or bullying another). Marking has a negative meaning: this mark is a stigma, it has a force that reduces people to it. The marked one is reduced to its mark. It stops being a person.

lets go thru there. we could ask ourselves: who are this people that are marking other people so the first could appear as neutral, unmarked? Is it every white, straight, owner [?] men? If there is no unmarked people, if all colors are colors, all are marks, then is difficult to identify the enemy. This is a perverse side of marking that shows itself in the old example: "sexism exists? Yes. Are you a sexist? No!" Who is our enemy? We have to think about it. Another thing about this marking process is that those people, the unmarked or the least marked people, appear to be more free than the others. The marking reduces to a mark, suffocate us. "This or that is what being a woman means". There is the place for a woman, "it’s the kitchen" (barefoot and pregnant?) and so it goes. There's no place for poor in the shopping mall. These marks can stop our transit. They work to draw a line, a limit to select who may transit in what place.
we cannot point to someone that is totally unmarked? (doesn’t this white, straight owner men has a marked place of his own?) but we can at least point out that these markings function in a system that feeds on the prohibition or barring of free movement, using this process of marking to retro-feed itself.

but there are resistance movements against this restriction. they can work in several ways, one of them is by retaking, affirming positively marks usually seen as negative. the mark stops being a prison to become place of resistance and existence. is the kitchen's resignification, feminism to the kitchen! this actions not only reclaim the self-affirmation of our marks but also put in question the neutrality of some, so they stop being "one" to be "others".

This is why when we say “working man and woman” we are not just putting ourselves on the scene, but we are marking men as different – as a non-neuter gender. When we realize that “we are all marks” or that aren’t unmarked bodies , we start to question this free transit of some bodies that constrain others. There’s a difference between carry a mark and being carried by marks and we can dodge the marks imposed as stamps and think about it as a possible base for solidarity. We are all mark/ed/s trough this mark(s) as a ground, a position that allows us to communicate, share experiences with other person inhabiting other mark/position/ground. Sometimes is strategically interesting to affirm myself as a lesbian, or vegan, be it as resistance, shared fight or as a way to build solidarity with people that share or may share this fight or experience. difference cannot keep on existing as a mark of supposed oppression and hierarchy.
the absence of movement , paralysis, is death. those marks imprison us, rob us the joy and will to choose another paths. we must remember that freedom of choice is usually and oddly associated with consumerism. The possibility of choose cost a lot more than you think. The way we say things tells a lot of how we live our lives and group ourselves. We need some categories of thought to support us. Speak is a condition of conjoined existence and it says about how we wanna live (our wishes, our angst). Doing micropolitics is trying to undermine the systems of domination that grows when there is no opposition (unexpected), resistance or subversion.

The process of marking resistance (the difference, the negation of system) is a form to control focus and contagion and therefore to keep the system working. Sabotage as a decentralized and anonymous way of resistance – throw our shoes into the gear – is a crime and must be neutralized. we wont let the dominator – hidden behind a neutrality that pretends itself invisible – sleep tight.

we understand that marcos (ezln) establishes himselfstands as a mark that symbolizes itself- in it's most interesting way - as a body that signifies a multiplicity of other bodies... his shape, color or sex doesn't really matter. what matters is that through that mark/mask a collectivity of bodies is able to signify their impersonality, transitoriality, their transit.

there's a big man for each big happening, for each big movement. this repeats a series of clichés and some history's personification. what could be understood as a didactical tool for mentioning y pointing some moments and people (men) as a way to ease a set of ideas & events's diffusion is also a tool that turns invisible. it erases &/or camouflage an identity shaped and shaping itself daily & collectively.

When we use the expression "colored people" are we trying to say that white people have no color? If we call black people (or indigenous people or brown people, or oriental people) "colored people" we are saying that white people are colourless. And if we pay a little attention we could see that this is not true. We are all colored people, noboby is colourless. So why is it that some of the colors are marked as colors? Why we attribute to some color a mark, and to another the neutrality [hum... neutralidade como marca, também? acho que cabe um adendo]? Who decided that white is a neutral color? we could make a lot of questions like those ones, for example, who decided that generic-male (language) is neutral? who said that heterosexuality is normal or the pencil light-pink in my pencil box is the skin tone? Who decided that one color is skin tone and the others are different tone? Who marked one color and not the other?

It reminds me of an expression that children often use in portuguese: “fulana está de marcação comigo” (could be roughly translated as: this person is marking me, but it means that someone is harassing or bullying another). Marking has a negative meaning: this mark is a stigma, it has a force that reduces people to it. The marked one is reduced to its mark. It stops being a person.

Let us continue this line of thought. we could ask ourselves: who are this people that are marking other people so the first could appear as neutral, unmarked? Is it every white, straight, owner [?] men? If there is no unmarked people, if all colors are colors, all are marks, then is difficult to identify the enemy. This is a perverse side of marking that shows itself in the old example: "sexism exists? Yes. Are you a sexist? No!" Who is our enemy? We have to think about it. Another thing about this marking process is that those people, the unmarked or the least marked people, appear to be more free than the others. The marking reduces to a mark, suffocate us. "This or that is what being a woman means". There is the place for a woman, "it’s the kitchen" (barefoot and pregnant?) and so it goes. There's no place for poor in the shopping mall. These marks could stop our transit. They work to draw a line, a limit to select who may transit in what place. [parei aqui!]

we cannot point to someone that is totally mark-free (ou totally unmarked?) (doesn’t this white, straight??? Men has a marked place of his own?) but we can at least point out that these markings function in a system. {não consigo]

but there are resistance movements against this restriction. they can work in several ways, one of them is by retaking, affirming positively marks usually seen as negative. the mark stops being a prison to become place of resistance and existence. is the kitchen's resignification, feminism to the kitchen! this actions not only reclaim the self-affirmation of our marks but also put in question the neutrality of some, so they stop being "one" to be "other"

This is why when we say “working man and woman” we aren’t just putting women in the scene, but we are marking the men as different – as a non-neuter gender. When we realize that “we are all marks” or that aren’t unmarked bodies , we start to question the free transit of a body [???]

The difference between carry a mark and being carried by marks, dodge the marks imposed as stamps and think about marks as a possible base for solidarity. We are all marked (are all marks) trough this mark(s) as a ground, a position that allow us to communicate, share experiences with other person inhabiting other mark/position/ground. Sometimes is strategically interesting to affirm myself as a lesbian, or vegan, be as a resistance, shared fight or as a way to build solidarity with people that share or may share this fight or experience. Alterity can exist, but never difference (which supposes oppression and hierarchy). [nhá. tenho pensado muito sobre isso e não sei se concordo, mas ok]

lack of movement is a symptom of death [ou “paralysis equals death”] those marks that imprison us, rob us the joy and will to choose another paths. Remember that freedom of choice is usually and oddly associated with consumerism. The possibility of choose cost a lot more than you think. The way we say things tells a lot of how we live our lives, and group ourselves. We need some categories of thought to support us. Speak is a condition of conjoined existence and it says about how we wanna live (our wishes, our angst). Do (micro) politics is undermine the systems of domination that grows when there are no opposition (??????), resistance or subversion.

The process of marking resistance (the difference, the negation of system) is to control the focus and [???] to keep the system working. Sabotage as a decentralized and anonymous way of resistance – throw our shoes into the gear – is a crime and must be neutralized. The figure of the dominator – that doesn’t appear – can’t sleep tight.